Jurisdictional error in registration penalty proceedings: an already registered dealer cannot be treated as evading registration for an additional branch.

Section 28(1) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could not be invoked against an already registered dealer who sought amendment of the registration certificate to include an additional place of business. The court noted that a dealer with more than one place of business in different circles must seek registration-related amendment before the Commissioner, and the deeming provision treated the dealer as having valid registration from the date of application. Because the branch was only part of an existing registered business, it could not be treated as an unregistered dealer evading registration. The assessment and penalty order, being based on an erroneous view of law and without jurisdiction, was set aside, and the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternative statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 28(1) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005 could be invoked against a dealer already registered in another circle and seeking amendment of the registration certificate for an additional place of business, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: Section 28(1) applies only where a dealer liable to tax has willfully failed to apply for registration or failed to furnish particulars required for registration. The petitioner was already a registered dealer under the Act and, under Rule 3(9)(a) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, a dealer having more than one place of business in different circles was required to apply before the Commissioner for registration-related amendment, not separately before the local circle officer. The petitioner had applied for amendment and, by operation of the deeming provision in Section 19, was to be treated as having a valid registration from the date of application. The Kishanganj branch was only an additional place of business of an already registered dealer, so it could not be treated as an unregistered dealer evading registration. Since the assessment and penalty order was passed on a mistaken view of law and without jurisdiction, the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar the writ petition.

Conclusion: Section 28(1) was inapplicable to the petitioner, and the impugned order was jurisdiction and liable to be set aside; the writ was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment and penalty proceedings against the petitioner could not stand because the branch was part of an already registered dealer and the authority proceeded on an erroneous assumption of evasion of registration.

Ratio Decidendi: A dealer already registered under the Act, who has applied for amendment to include an additional place of business, cannot be proceeded against as a dealer evading registration under Section 28(1); where the authority acts without jurisdiction, the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ relief.

---